The perpetual calendar
in [Math]
|
Prev: THE MIND OF MATHEMATICIANS PART 7 " SPATIAL MATHEMATICS , VALUE OF 1 and 3
Next: Exactly why the theories of relativity are complete nonsense- the basic mistake exposed!
From: Transfer Principle on 23 Feb 2010 23:41 On Feb 23, 4:57 pm, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Jerry Friedman wrote: > > I just dropped by rasfw, where people had discussed a different > > proposal: > >http://individual.utoronto.ca/kalendis/symmetry.htm > I would object to this because of the huge variation in month lengths. > This is not only against the original purpose of months, but against > the modern use of them as financial periods. Notice that the author of the Sym454 calendar also has a Sym010 variant, in which months have 30-31 days. This addresses Usher's first objection: http://individual.utoronto.ca/kalendis/classic.htm > Also, he has weeks starting on Monday, which I of course find > unacceptable. Having a similar proposal with Sunday would make every > month have Friday the 13th, which would hopefully get rid of that > ridiculous superstitious concept. A Sym010 variant with weeks starting on Sunday would result in only four Fridays the 13th each year (falling in January, April, July, and October). BTW, the author of the Sym454 and Sym010 calendars also wrote the second link I gave earlier in this thread, which was a comparison of various leap year rules (including the 62-year cycle, equivalent to half of Usher's 124-year cycle).
From: Brian M. Scott on 23 Feb 2010 23:41 On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 20:02:19 -0800 (PST), Ant�nio Marques <entonio(a)gmail.com> wrote in <news:0c8b6c0c-594b-4407-9470-66ba79413e47(a)g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> in sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: > On Feb 24, 12:19�am, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...(a)csuohio.edu> wrote: >> Ant�nio Marques wrote: >>> Adam Funk wrote (23-02-2010 20:02): >>>> On 2010-02-23, Ant�nio Marques wrote: >> [...] >>>>> From the Church's point of view, there aren't >>>>> multiple churches. There's only one. To say that >>>>> there is more than one church is heresy. It's not a >>>>> matter of wishing to be the only one, it's a >>>>> religious matter. The multiplicity of churches is >>>>> anathema and downright sin. >>>> Well, they would say that, wouldn't they... >>> It's not what you think. Either the Church's message is >>> universal and Christ did found one Church, or it isn't. >> It's by no means clear that the historical figure actually >> founded *any* church, but even supposing that he did, >> there's no reason to think that its message is universal. > What, is it restricted to some specific culture(s)? Not > applicable to other(s)? Applicability is in the mind of the recipient, not a matter of fact, so it obviously isn't universally applicable. >>> To endorse the idea of multiple churches is like >>> endorsing the idea of apartheid. >> Hardly; it's more a matter of 'whatever floats your boat'. > You're not listening. > To endorse the idea of multiple churches is precisely like > endorsing the idea of apartheid. I heard you the first time. I think that the assertion is utter nonsense, at best. Brian
From: Brian M. Scott on 23 Feb 2010 23:44 On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 17:22:07 -0800 (PST), Andrew Usher <k_over_hbarc(a)yahoo.com> wrote in <news:b0ea53eb-270f-4efa-ae7f-41a30076c48c(a)k41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> in sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: [...] > You can define the week any way you want, but the > historical seven-day week begins on Sunday. [...] *A* historical seven-day week begins on Sunday; another historical seven-day week begins on Monday.
From: António Marques on 23 Feb 2010 23:48 On Feb 24, 4:41 am, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...(a)csuohio.edu> wrote: > On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 20:02:19 -0800 (PST), Ant nio Marques > <ento...(a)gmail.com> wrote in > <news:0c8b6c0c-594b-4407-9470-66ba79413e47(a)g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> > in > sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: > > On Feb 24, 12:19 am, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...(a)csuohio.edu> wrote: > >> Ant nio Marques wrote: > >>> Adam Funk wrote (23-02-2010 20:02): > >>>> On 2010-02-23, Ant nio Marques wrote: > >> [...] > >>>>> From the Church's point of view, there aren't > >>>>> multiple churches. There's only one. To say that > >>>>> there is more than one church is heresy. It's not a > >>>>> matter of wishing to be the only one, it's a > >>>>> religious matter. The multiplicity of churches is > >>>>> anathema and downright sin. > >>>> Well, they would say that, wouldn't they... > >>> It's not what you think. Either the Church's message is > >>> universal and Christ did found one Church, or it isn't. > >> It's by no means clear that the historical figure actually > >> founded *any* church, but even supposing that he did, > >> there's no reason to think that its message is universal. > > What, is it restricted to some specific culture(s)? Not > > applicable to other(s)? > > Applicability is in the mind of the recipient, not a matter > of fact, so it obviously isn't universally applicable. What, so now universal health care isn't universal either? Besides which, the point is completely moot - did you read my 'Either...'? > >>> To endorse the idea of multiple churches is like > >>> endorsing the idea of apartheid. > >> Hardly; it's more a matter of 'whatever floats your boat'. > > You're not listening. > > To endorse the idea of multiple churches is precisely like > > endorsing the idea of apartheid. > > I heard you the first time. I think that the assertion is > utter nonsense, at best. You don't even know what I meant by it. Think. You're a mathematician, it won't be hard. What can I be referring to with that comparison?
From: Evan Kirshenbaum on 23 Feb 2010 23:59
Robert Bannister <robban1(a)bigpond.com> writes: > Adam Funk wrote: >> On 2010-02-23, António Marques wrote: >> >>> "Roman Catholic" ISN'T AN OFFICIAL SELF-DESIGNATION. ANYWHERE. >> Are you going to write to all the churches in the UK with "St ____'s >> Roman Catholic Church" or "St ____'s R. C. Church" on their signs, >> newsletters, websites, etc., to tell them that they are wrong? (I >> think this is common in much of the USA too.) > > I won't try to claim such signs don't exist, but I don't remember ever > seeing one. The only way I can tell a church is RC is by the > architecture and usually by the name (saint I've never heard of or > long-winded way of saying Mary). I see a couple hundred thousand hits for "st * roman catholic church", limiting it to site:.au, but I don't see any that appear to be from web sites that belong to the churches themselves, so it may be far less common in Australia. It's certainly not uncommon in the US. There are also a lot of "Roman Catholic Diocese of <city>"es, the Roman Catholic High School in Philadelphia (and other schools), etc. -- Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |He who will not reason, is a bigot; 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |he who cannot is a fool; and he who Palo Alto, CA 94304 |dares not is a slave. | Sir William Drummond kirshenbaum(a)hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ |